News and Analysis

Colombian army and paramilitaries intensify offensive
against trade unionists and left-wing activists

By Ramon Sanchez

During the last month the Colombian army and the paramilitaries have
increased their campaign of threats and assassinations against trade
union leaders. On October 30 death threats were issued against various
members of SINTRAUNICOL-University Workers’ Union. Jose Joaquin
Cubides, General Secretary of the agricultural workers’ union in
Arauca, was killed on November 7 in Fortul, Arauca.

Also from Arauca reports have come out denouncing the use of the
local civilian population as human shields in skirmishes with guerrilla
groups. In Arauca the victims of the army and paramilitary operations
are counted in their thousands. It is also in Arauca where we find the
largest contingent of US troops. It is believed that 328 people were
killed and 5,714 people were displaced by military operations in Arauca
in 2003 alone.

All this violence is not an accident. Arauca is a department that
shares a border with Venezuela. The Colombian oligarchy, with the
advice of the US administration, has not hesitated to use Colombian
bases to attack and terrorise the population on the other side of the
border to undermine the revolutionary process that is taking place in
Venezuela. Arauca is one of the main bases from which they wage all
these reactionary provocations.

On November 8, students, teachers and parents held a protest against
the privatisation of state education in Cauca. Police attacked the
protest with tear gas and rubber bullets. Various people were
hospitalised. Others, like the parents of one student, were dragged
away by the police and it is not clear what has happened to them.

All this is nothing new. The Colombian Police, Army and the AUC (the
main paramilitary group) have been engaged in these kinds of activities
for decades. However, with Uribe in office the situation has become
even worse. After the failure of the “carrot and stick” approach
exercised by Pastrana (former Colombian president) US imperialism has
supporetd Uribe, a far right leaning politician.

Uribe Velez, who studied at Harvard and Oxford, started his
political career as the Mayor of Medellin (the second biggest city in
the country). He was removed after three months by the central
government to avoid a scandal regarding his ties with the drugs mafia.

It is not an accident that Colombia is considered the most dangerous
country for trade unionists. The Colombian ruling class and their
masters in the US administration do not want any kind of resistance to
their plans for widespread privatisation and their militarisation of
the area, known as Plan Colombia.

As different analysts have pointed out, the Plan Colombia (recently
renamed Plan Patriota) is the military side of a plan which involves
the removal of any obstacle to the operations of mainly US companies.
One of the latest companies to make big profits from this increasing
militarisation of the country is Harken Energy. On November 12 the Colombia Journal Online pointed out the following:

“On November 4, the Texas-based company announced the signing of a
new oil exploration and production contract in Colombia. The company is
closely linked to President George W. Bush who served on its board of
directors from 1986 until 1990.”

The other side of the plan is the financial one. Alongside these
repressive measures we also have the IMF counter-reforms in return for
loans. But the causes of the problem are not only economic. In the last
five years Latin America has become a very unstable area. Almost every
single country has been shaken by revolutionary or pre-revolutionary
situations. Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela are amongst them.
This is a very dangerous situation for US imperialism. US imperialism
has been looking for a country that can play the same role that Israel
plays in the Middle East. They need a loyal policeman in the area and
they will not hesitate to spend all kinds of resources to achieve this
goal.

That is why the Colombian oligarchy is pursuing a policy of complete
annihilation of the labour movement in Colombia, together with any
other protest movement. If anyone had any doubts about the real nature
of US imperialism, all you need to do is look at what it is doing in
Colombia.

They go around the world lecturing others on democracy, declaring
different governments as “rogue regimes”, and in the case of Iraq and
Afghanistan they have not hesitated to militarily overthrow these
regimes. But what they bring is not democracy. Far from it. They bring
more death and destruction, and terrible suffering for the local people.

In Colombia they are doing the same in a more or less covert manner,
but it is fundamentally part of the same operation. Latin America is
too important for them. It is the duty of all fighting workers and
youth around the world to protest and raise the issue of the plight of
the trade unionists in Colombia.

Fidel and Chávez together and in red... this November 7

By Celia Hart

On November 7, I like to visit Lenin Hill in Regla. Regla is a
little sea town in Havana that is reached crossing the bay. The Virgen
de Regla is the patron of the city. Consequently, when we arrive she
receives us flirtatiously, with her blue dress, announcing the certain
victory of the Industriales, her baseball team in the coming
championships.

Lenin is higher up. In 1924, a communist mayor decided to build the
monument as a beautiful Cuban tribute to the leader of the workers. I
think that it is the first one dedicated to Lenin outside the USSR. I
insist that Cuban nationality is adorned by brush strokes of love that
fosters a new internationalism. Blessed be my compatriots of Regla!
These days, mostly after November 2, Lenin and the Black Virgin must
have chatted quite a bit. She, fearful for the fate of the Cubans and
the poor of the world. He, concerned to see if we communists are
capable of overcoming the last blows of the enemy.

The flowers for November 7 are bought in front of the church. The
beautiful Virgin always offers the freshest ones to her comrade up on
the Hill. Let no one be confused that the interests of this compañera
lie in the pitiful phrases from Rome nor those of a Pole holding up a
cross. That certainly has nothing to do with the spirit of that
Palestine who died by the hands of the Zionists for defending the poor
of the Land. No, the Caribbean Virgin, undoubtedly, blesses these
hundreds of children who should be able to live every year in their
country and those elderly people who should not die of hunger.

The port can be seen from the Hill. For more than ten years, those
who called themselves heirs of the man of the Hill, decided, with a
brush stroke, not to help Cuba or the Virgen de Regla, or the children,
or the elderly. In the name of freedom, they decided to put us in the
hands of imperialism. They failed in their purpose. My country not only
saved itself of all and with its virgins, but Cuba saved the honor of
the October revolution. During those hard years, the words “Socialism
or Death” found those Europeans who sought refuge in this little
island.

That is why, today, the best festivity of the communist was evident.
No! It was not the words of His Excellency, the Russian Ambassador to
Cuba. This man cannot know how to talk of the October Revolution.
Rather he could talk of the history of the Czars and the Orthodox
Church, never of the Bolshevik revolution, nor of the flag of the
proletariat. They lowered the red flag in that embassy. I think there
is no celebration without that color. If there is a flag that lowered
the flag of the communists from many places on a November 7, it is the
flag of the Russian Republic. To tell the truth, in all parts except
Coyoacán where Leon Trotsky guards it.

The anniversary of the October Revolution was celebrated in Havana
in the Council of State and Ministers: On the 6th, in the evening,
Comandante Chávez decided to visit his injured colleague. During those
eight hours of visit, in a warm embrace, the world revolution fused for
a second. At that moment, under the silent notes of the International,
Lenin again raised his voice to the workers and the red army again
shook the world. Its legendary head was also included in that embrace,
although he was 126 years old. The red flag of Coayacán unfurled its
wings seeing the two best revolutionaries of the world. In that
embrace, there was the first little piece of hope. That hope that
seemed to disappear this past November 2.

This is what happened: Hugo Chávez appeared at the door of the
office, fresh as the sea, with a light colored shirt and sneakers. This
color highlighted the intense bronze of the skin in complicity with his
wide smile and eyes that revealed an original beauty. He greeted with
the right hand in a frank military salute. He walked slowly over,
smilingly and moving his head from side to side, in a familiar gesture.
The open smile that turned into open laughter. Fidel was there. Fidel
was seated. He had seriously injured his knee and right arm on October
20. Fidel greeted his comrade with the left hand, with his favorite
hand! Chavez approached, bent down and with both hands on the shoulder
of the legendary guerrilla repeated a familiar phrase “You’re all right
Fidel, all right” And yes he was! Even with his leg stretched out and
his right arm in a sling, he was overwhelmingly happy. But, how strange
was Fidel? For a moment, I didn’t understand. Fidel wasn’t dressed in
his military greens. Fidel was in red. A deep red that projects
optimism to the very stars seeing their young comrade. In red. Why was
he in red?

It is the color of the Bolivarian revolution that had won a popular
victory on October 31. Coincidentally it is the color of the world
revolution, the color of the October Revolution. Fidel was expressing
to Chavez, with that color that he, together with all of us, had
participated in the elections of October 31 where we were victorious.

These elections were, undoubtedly, a deepening of the ones of August
15. Chávez made no shady deals, he deceived no one, did not have to
resort to personal gossip about his adversaries, he did not have to
invest hundreds of millions of dollars. His campaign, colored in red
and sincerity appealed to the truth. That truth that endows the best
revolutionary of Venezuela to be the legitimate president. He resorted
to his allies of the past. Che who he considers an “infinite and
immortal revolutionary”. The revolution in Venezuela is willing to “be
real”, as Che said in his farewell letter to Fidel. Therefore, in the
Bolivarian revolution “we conquer or we die”. In his victory campaign
Chávez did not talk of what Venezuela had achieved, he spoke of what
had to be done. “The deep problem of Venezuela is the exclusion and
poverty and even more, the dire poverty”. He unleashed a battle with no
quarter given to bureaucracy and against the large land holdings. He
asked each Chavista governor elected “to become ... the head of the
struggle against the large land holdings”.

“Now Venezuela is entering a new stage, the Bolivarian revolution
must be deepened, it must be more a revolution every day, more
authentic, truer, the structural transformation of the economy, society
is the grand challenge we face now”, Chavez says. “Poverty, misery,
exclusion will not be solved with lukewarm cloths. Simon Bolivar said
clearly “The political gangrenes are not cured with palliatives; I
could add: the social gangrenes are not cured with palliatives. The
only way, the true way, we must accept it thus, understand it thus:
each day more of us could lead our country in the full social and
economic revolution that is through a full revolution, an integral
revolution, a revolution that must assume the economic; in other words
a revolution should be, in addition to political, social, economic in
depth. I will say it now, we must leave behind the capitalist model
that ruled in Venezuela for so long; within a framework of the
capitalist model, the economic capitalist model is not the solution to
the serious problems of society, of poverty, of misery, of exclusion”.

Che would have said it with fewer words: “Socialist revolutions or caricatures of revolution”.

Perhaps this revolutionary does not know that José Martí said in his
radical speech Insufficient politics: “Remedies are important when the
relationship of the diseases are not analyzed with strength and urgency
... Politics is a guilty occupation when they hide from it ... the deep
poverty and dire misfortune, the dire poverty and misfortune of the
people”. The policies of Chavez are more than enough. “Homeland or
death” is the slogan of the Venezuelan commandant. But José Martí said,
“Homeland is Humanity”. In Cuba, another necessary word was added to
make it true: Socialism. This slogan that, taken to its utmost
consequences, is the slogan of the world.

I’ve been wondering how two peoples with barely two days difference
can choose such opposites. The US people subscribed to war; the
Venezuelan to revolution.

Nothing much can be gathered from television and, however, two men
were observed who, in spite of a cool November, it was very clear on
camera. Chavez bowed to greet him and ratify his commitment. Fidel
proudly pointed to the two small flags of the two countries embroidered
in his pocket.

They spent eight hours together. I don’t know what they talked about
but as you and I can imagine they talked of: The great victory of
October 31; the victory of the Frente Amplio whose true victory must
now be observed with concrete actions; the recent Rio Summit; where, in
fact, President Chávez announced a “strange” observation for those
planning to fight poverty and hunger in the south of my continent. His
words were, more or less: “I don’t know how it can be done through a
capitalist economy”. And, above all else, they must have talked of the
triumph of reaction in the United States. A good agenda for a November
7.

At the end, in front of the TV cameras, Chavez dons a beautiful
shirt... a red one his comrade had given him, after receiving a
painting of Bolivar by Valdés, an artist of the westernmost province of
the Island.

It is now November 7 and Chávez will have to leave but not
forgetting with that small acute look that Fidel and he were “sharing
the soul” as a journalist commented.

I looked at Fidel again. I thought of those years of infinite
struggle swimming against the current. It still goes on and his wounds
are from combat. It wasn’t an accident in the home working in the
garden, like many men of his age, but winning more battles of ideas.

José Martí said: “When there are many men without honor, there are
always men who have the honor of many men. Those are the ones who rebel
with a terrible force against those who steal freedom from the people
that is to steal honor from men. In these men there are thousands of
men, an entire people, human dignity.”

And in this point in time, on November 7 of this year, human dignity multiplied in this meeting of love.

Then I did not suffer much for not having visited Lenin in Regla.
These two men in red gave me the perfect celebration and my November 7
renewed my desire to fight. The first battle we will wage will be to
morally teach the US people that they are being bewitched by an evil of
so many years.

We will fight with all our strength, happy, knowing that the red
flag now flutters over a new peoples of South American in a permanent
revolution. And that color will extend throughout the continent and
leap across the Atlantic and reach the beautiful Europe where we have
so many comrades who are red inside and go down to Africa and reach the
poles. And the Land will again turn in the right direction in relation
to the sun.

I recalled with warmth and relevance Trotsky’s slogan: dum spiro spero (while there is a murmur of life there is hope).

And still, I am asked in many places: what will happen when Fidel
goes. Fidel will not go for me. I believe that Chávez is only about 50.

The Cuban “Miami Five”

Jailed in the US for fighting terrorism

By Jorge Martin

On June 16 and 17, 1998, the Cuban authorities, in an exchange with the FBI
handed over a huge amount of material related to anti-Cuban terrorist activities
conducted from US territory, including 230 pages of documents, five videos of
material broadcast on US TV about terrorist activities against Cuba and eight
audio cassettes containing 2 hours and 40 minutes of conversations between
jailed central American terrorists and their contacts outside.

Less than two months later, on September 12, the FBI, in early morning raids
arrested five Cubans in Miami. Were they related to terrorist activities against
Cuba? Quite the opposite, they were Cuban agents working to infiltrate the
anti-Cuban terrorist groups based in Miami and they had also participated in the
gathering of the information passed on to the FBI.

This was the beginning of a protracted legal case against these five people
now known as the “Miami Five”. The case is one of injustice, political
manipulation of the justice system and one that exposes the hypocrisy of Bush’s
so-called “war on terrorism”. And this is probably the reason why you have
not heard anything about it in the mainstream media.

The Miami Five, Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino Salazar, René
González Sehwerert, Fernando González Llort and Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez,
have all been given the longest possible sentences for the “crimes” they are
accused of. Gerardo Hernández has been sentenced to two life sentences and 15
years of jail. Another two, Antonio Guerrero and Ramón Labañino have also been
give life sentences. And René González and Fernándo González have been
condemned to 19 and 15 years imprisonment.

From the moment they were arrested, the Miami Five were subjected to
extremely harsh treatment. After 15 days in the Miami Federal Detention Centre,
they were transferred to the Special House Unit, better known as “the hole”,
in isolation cells 15 feet by 7. These cells are used for very dangerous
criminals, generally those accused of murder, and according to the rules,
prisoners can only be kept there for a maximum of 60 days. Two of the Miami
Five, Gerardo Hernández and Ramón Labañino were to remain there for 17
months.

What are the Miami Five accused of? There are a number of minor charges,
including acting as agents of a foreign government without being registered with
the US authorities (which the Five admit to), but the two main charges which
three of them have been condemned to life sentences for are related to spying
and murder.

From the very beginning, the local media started to talk of a dangerous group
of Cuban spies that had endangered US national security. But in the seven long
months of the trial (which makes this one of the longest judicial cases in the
history of the US), the prosecution could not present one single piece of
evidence to back up this case. Defence lawyers called to the stand US Navy
officers, both active and retired, high ranking US intelligence officers and
others and they all testified that after looking at all the evidence found on
the Five, they had not seen any classified material.

Even the prosecutor of the case had to make clear in his opening remarks to
the jury that, “we arrested these five men and we seized 20,000 pages of
documents from their computers, but ladies and gentlemen from these 20,000 pages
we cannot present one single page of classified information”. Since they could
present no proof of the charge of spying, the prosecution decided to charge them
with “conspiracy to spy”. Conspiracy is a very vague term and very difficult
to prove. It means that the Five got together and decided they were going to
spy. How can anyone prove that? And even if there was evidence (which was not
the case), it is not normal that three of them should get the highest possible
sentence you can get for spying (life imprisonment) but only for “conspiring”
to spy!

The second charge for which Gerardo Hernández got his second life sentence
is conspiracy to commit murder. He was accused of having been involved in the
downing of two Cessna planes just off the coast of Havana by Cuban MIGs in
February 1996. The story started in 1995 when an agreement was reached between
Cuban and US authorities in order to regulate migration policies between the two
countries. It was at that time when the anti-Cuban Miami organisation “Hermanos
al Rescate” (Brothers to the Rescue) started carrying out terrorist activities
against Cuba. In the 20 months leading to the downing of the two planes, they
carried out 25 unauthorised flights over Cuban airspace. What did the Cuban
government do? In each case they filed a formal diplomatic complaint for this
violation of its country’s airspace. They received no reply.

In January 1996, the Cuban authorities invited admiral Carroll from the US
Navy to Cuba and told him in no uncertain terms that their patience had run out
and they would tolerate no more violations of their national sovereignty,
particularly since they had information (provided by the Miami Five) that
Hermanos al Rescate was about to arm these planes. Carroll went back to the US
and reported to the Pentagon and the State Department that the Cubans were
serious about their threats. Richard Nuccio, at that time an advisor to
president Clinton, testified in the trial and said that he was very worried
about the public boasting (in TV broadcasts) of Hermanos al Rescate leader José
Basulto, about their illegal flights over Cuba.

On February 24th, three Cessna planes, one piloted by José Basulto
himself, left a base in Florida and went to Cuba. They had been warned by the
personnel at the airbase that it would be very dangerous to fly over Cuban
airspace. The Cuban authorities were also forewarned. Was it Gerardo Hernández
who warned them? No, it was the US Federal Aviation Agency who warned the Cubans
that the planes were on their way. The planes were warned by radio that they
were about to enter a restricted military area. They ignored the warnings. The
Cuban air force sent two MIG fighters and after further ignored warnings downed
two of the planes. José Basulto managed to escape. The Cuban government claims
that the planes were illegally inside their airspace when downed, while the US
government charges that they were 4 miles outside the limit.

So one might ask, what is the relationship between Gerardo Hernández and
this case? He has been found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. The “proof”
presented is a telegram to Gerardo, who had infiltrated Hermanos al Rescate,
telling him not to fly on that date. This evidence is very flimsy, particularly
for such a serious charge as this. It does not prove that Gerardo knew the
planes were going to be attacked, and it does not prove he had anything to do
with the attack itself. All he did was to report about the activities of a
terrorist organisation operating from the US. Furthermore the information about
flights leaving and arriving in South Florida is publicly available.

Finally, the bottom line is whether a sovereign nation like Cuba has the
right to defend its airspace or not. For a government like that of the US which
insists in immunity for its armed personnel operation abroad, it
is a blatant case of double standards to bring an accusation of murder against a
government defending its own territory against terrorists coming from the
US. The case against Gerardo for conspiracy to murder is so weak that in an
unprecedented move, right at the end of the trial, they tried to get the charge
changed from murder to homicide. But both the Tribunal and the Appeal Court
rejected the petition, since the whole trial had been based on the original
charge.

A fair trial in Miami?

Clearly the evidence against the Five was at most flimsy, but the jury after
very short deliberation, found them guilty. That can only be explained by the
fact that the trial took place in Miami. From the beginning the defence
attorneys asked for the trial to be transferred out of Miami. It is well known
that the mafia type networks of the rabidly reactionary Cuban exiles dominate
the city. It was very difficult to have a fair trial and a jury that would not
be intimidated in such a city.

Furthermore the trial took place on the same dates as the polemic over Elian
Gonzalez, the Cuban boy kept in Miami by some relatives against the wishes of
his father. The Cuban exiles organised violent demonstrations and riots on those
days, and the whole city was immersed in an atmosphere of anti-Cuban hysteria.
How can the trial of five “dangerous Communist agents”, one of them accused
of having participated in the murder of Cuban exiles, take place in such a
climate and be a fair trial?

Even the US government recognised in a different case a year later, that a
case connected to Cuba could not be tried fairly in Miami. The US government was
being accused of unfair discrimination by a Mexican employee of the Immigration
Service who claimed he had been dismissed because of his support for the
anti-Cuban mafia in the Elian Gonzalez case. In this case, which has only an
indirect relation to Cuba, the government argued that it could not be tried
fairly in Miami and asked for the trial to be transferred. The request was
granted. But in the case of the Miami Five, which is directly linked to Cuba and
to the reactionary Cuban exiles who dominate the city, the request was rejected.

The government of the US also used a number of other legal tricks to get the
Five condemned. For instance it used the Confidential Information Protection
Act, in order not to release the 20,000 pages of documents seized from the Five.
For months, neither the accused nor their lawyers had access to these documents,
none of which contained US national defence sensitive information, or any
classified information as stated by the prosecution itself. The defence was also
not allowed to use the “state of need” argument against the accusation of
acting as unregistered agents. This means that you can break the law in order to
serve a greater good. In this case, the defence argued that they did so in order
to save lives and property by infiltrating these terrorist groups.

Finally there is also the issue of the harsh treatment the Five received and
are receiving in jail, particularly in relation to the visits from their family.
Olga Salanueva, René’s wife, and Adriana Pérez, Gerardo’s wife, have never
been allowed to see their husbands since they have been in jail! How is that
possible? Simply by not giving them a visa to enter the US. The US immigration
service said that they cannot even argue humanitarian reasons for the granting
of the visas, since they are a “threat to US national security”. This
vindictive ruling goes against the US’s own penitentiary rules and
Constitution. Their young children have been growing up for years without being
allowed to see their fathers. Visitation rights apply to even the more callous
convicted murderers, so why should they not be allowed to the Miami Five who are
clearly innocent victims of political imprisonment?

The long arm of the anti-Cuban Mafia in Miami

But the implications of this case go much further if one takes the time to
trace the background of some of the people involved. Take for instance Hector
Pesquera, Special Agent in Charge of the Miami regional office of the FBI and
responsible for the arrest of the Five. What is his background? He became
prominent when he was involved in the investigation that led to the arrest of
four Miami Cubans in 1997. The US Coast Guard arrested them in October of that
year when it seized a yacht in Puerto Rican waters. They found seven boxes of
ammunition, military uniforms, two assault rifles and other military equipment.
One of the arrested, Angel Alfonso Alemán, quickly declared that he was in
charge and that their mission was to assassinate Castro during his visit to
Margarita Island in Venezuela.

Hector Pesquera, the FBI agent in charge of the case, promised to carry out
the investigation but added that “there might be foreign policy implications”
in which case he does not “rule anything out”.

The investigation soon led to the National Cuban American Foundation (FNCA),
the most important organisation of Cuban reactionary exiles, with close links
with the US Republican and Democratic parties. The owner of one of the rifles
was Francisco Hernández, the FNCA president and Miami’s most important
counter-revolutionary leader. A member of the FNCA Executive Committee was the
owner of the yacht. The member of the group in charge of communications was also
a known FNCA activist. While on parole, one of the accused was arrested again by
the DEA accused of bringing more than 350 kg of cocaine into the country.

All of the accused denied their guilt, with the exception of Alfonso who
tried to get out by pointing out that he is well connected and showed pictures
of himself with president Clinton, senator Torricelli (Democrat and the second
largest recipient of Cuban American money in election campaigns in the US), the
now deceased leader of the Cuban exiles Jorge Mas Canosa, etc. His lawyer, who
is also FBI investigating agent Hector Pesquera’s cousin, went as far as to
argue that if the CIA has tried so many times to assassinate Castro, how come it
is a crime for him to attempt to do the same!

The Cuban mafia threw all her weight into the case and finally the accused
were released. The judges, the accused and even special agent Pesquera himself,
all celebrated the outcome with a mass (these types they are always very “pious”)
and a party.

As if it were a reward for having failed to produce enough evidence against
the accused, special agent Pesquera was sent to Miami and appointed as Special
Agent in Charge for South Florida!

Barely 12 days later, the Miami Five were arrested. It was the first time
that a “network of Cuban spies” had been broken up on US territory since the
Cuban Revolution. Pesquera was quick to claim credit for the operation, despite
the fact that he had only been in charge there for less than two weeks! The case
of the Miami Five was clearly designed to appease the FNCA, with which Pesquera
has such good relations, despite the fact that some of its most prominent
members had been (sort of) “investigated” by himself in relation to
terrorist activities.

Remember what George W Bush said about “aiding and harbouring terrorists”
being on the same level as committing terrorist acts. But then this rule only
seems to apply to the “bad” terrorists, not to the ones that are on
Washington’s side and that sometimes even do some of the White House’s dirty
work. Not to mention the enormous political clout the FNCA has in Florida, the
state ruled by Bush’s brother Jeb, and in which Bush’s presidency was “won”.

The actions of the anti-Cuban terrorists (with a little help from the CIA)

Another story worth telling is that of Orlando Bosch, the person whose
actions Fernando González, one of the Miami Five, was in charge of monitoring.
Bosch left Cuba in 1960 and went to the US. His first terrorist activity was in
1968 when he was involved in the sending of a parcel bomb to Havana. In that
year he was responsible for more than 40 terrorist attacks. At the end of the
year he was arrested in Miami, tried and found guilty of an attack on a Polish
ship and sentenced to 10 years in jail. In 1974, while on parole, he fled the US
and carried on with his terrorist activities. He has confessed to carrying out
bomb attacks in Miami, New York, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico and Argentina.

In October 1976 he was arrested in Venezuela in connection with the terrorist
attack on a Cuban civilian airplane that resulted in 73 dead, men, women and
children. This was the first ever bomb attack on a civilian airplane in the
world. After spending 11 years in jail in Venezuela, having been proved that he
had been an associate of two other men accused of homicide in the same case, he
was finally released. In 1987 he returned to Miami and was arrested by the
immigration service. The proceedings for his deportation began.

But then enormous political pressure was exerted by the Cuban mafia and its
associates to get him released. Prominent in the campaign was senator Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (Republican and the largest recipient of Cuban American money in
election campaigns in the US). Amongst those involved was Jeb Bush, George W’s
brother, who was then Ileana’s election campaign manager. Finally George Bush
senior granted the release of this known and convicted terrorist and even gave
him permanent residence in the US.

Another of those involved with Bosch in the bomb attack on the Cuban airliner
in 1976 was Luis Posada Carriles. He had fled Cuba in 1959 after having been a
police agent under dictator Fulgencio Batista. Most of his later life was
dedicated to one goal: the assassination of Castro, working for the CIA and,
according to his own confession in an interview to the New York Times in 1998,
for Jorge Mas Canosa, the former head of the FNCA.

When Bosch and Posada were arrested by the Venezuela authorities, the Cuban
mafia in Miami raised the $50,000 dollars to bribe the jail authorities and got
him free. He then joined Lt Col Oliver North who got him a nice job with the CIA
organising Contras, the gang of counter-revolutionary cut throats
sabotaging the Nicaraguan Sandinista revolution in the 1980s. After that “campaign”
was over, he concentrated his attention on a bombing campaign against tourist
installations in Cuba in the mid 1990s that resulted in the death of an innocent
Italian tourist.

On November 17, 2000, Posada and another 3 prominent members of the Cuban
mafia, with close links to the NFCA leaders, were arrested in Panama and accused
of plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro during his visit to Panama to attend a
regional summit. In April 2004 they were tried for and found guilty of being a
threat to public security and falsifying documents. There was no mention in the
verdict of the accusation of plotting to kill Castro. But on August 26, 2004,
the four received a pardon from Panama’s outgoing president Mireya Moscoso,
just six days before she was to hand over to President-elect Martin Torrijos.

The decision came shortly after a visit by Colin Powell to Panama. Posada
went to Honduras, and the other three, all of them convicted terrorists, went
back to Miami to a warm welcome by the anti-Cuban mafia, and not surprisingly
were allowed in by the US immigration authorities. The three have carried out
terrorist acts on US territory. One of them, Guillermo Novo, was convicted of
participating in the car bombing that killed former Chilean Foreign Minister
Orlando Letelier, in Washington in 1978. Incidentally, the other two people
convicted of the car bombing of Letelier were released by president Bush against
the advice of both the FBI and the INS.

It is quite clear why the Cuban government had to undertake measures to
prevent terrorist attacks from these groups, since the US authorities not only
do not do anything to prevent them, but even turn a blind eye or collaborate
with them. Such terrorist attacks on Cuba (mostly against civilian targets, like
the bombing campaign against hotels and tourist resorts) have caused 3,478
deaths and 2,099 permanently disabled since 1959.

Free the Miami Five!

The case of the Miami Five is clearly about the right of a sovereign country
to defend itself against the terrorist actions conducted from a neighbouring
country that harbours them and does not lift a finger to stop their actions. The
case exposes the hypocrisy of the US ruling class when it claims it is
conducting a war on terrorism. It also uncovers the important role that the
reactionary anti-Cuban mafia in Miami play in US politics, both Republican and
Democrat. It is therefore an overtly political case that the US ruling class and
its media are not interested in publicising because the details are highly
damaging.

Socialists all over the world must demand first of all that the basic human
rights of the Miami Five are respected (starting with full rights to visits),
that the trial, which is now subject to a legal appeal, is reviewed and takes
places in fair conditions with full legal rights, and finally that the Miami
Five, whose only crime is to fight the reactionary terrorist anti-Cuban mafia in
Miami, be released. But this cannot be seen merely from a legal point of view. A
political case must be fought by political means. US labour and progressive
movement organisations must be made aware of the case and should take a clear
position.

The scandalous case of the Miami Five has exposed completely the cynical
hypocrisy of the Bush government in the so-called war against terrorism. Like
the even more barbarous scandal of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, it has
revealed the hollowness of its appeals to democracy and civilized behaviour and
the rule of law. It stands condemned before the tribunal of world public
opinion.

A labour movement enquiry should be conducted on the links between the Miami
anti-Cuban terrorists and the US state apparatus, its security services, the
legal system, etc. This is a crucial issue that the US labour and progressive
movement should consider as one of high priority. The same dirty methods that
the US ruling class uses against progressive governments and movements around
the world are – and will be – also used against US workers and their
organisations at home.

The real “crime” of Cuba from the point of view of the US ruling class is
that it provides an example of how, by expropriating the capitalist class, one
can provide for free for such things as high quality education and health care.
And this is a very dangerous example for the workers and peasants in the rest of
Latin America, but even for the workers in the US, millions of whom have no
health care at all and are excluded from higher education. Socialists and labour
activists all over the world must condemn the actions of US imperialism, which
constitute a serious threat to the democratic rights of workers everywhere.

ESF meeting on the trade union situation in Venezuela and Colombia

On October 16 the ESF delegates had the chance to get a first hand
report on the current situation in Colombia and Venezuela. The Colombia
Solidarity Campaign and Hands Off Venezuela, supported by Marxist.com
organised a workshop at the European Social Forum to explain the
situation of the trade unions in these two Latin American countries.
Around 65 campaigners, trade unionists and youth filled an already tiny
room. The room was so full that some members of the audience had to sit
on the floor!

Jeremy Dear speaking at the meeting

The meeting started with a contribution from Jeremy Dear. The NUJ
General Secretary gave an account of the situation for trade unionists
based on his own experience as a member of a TUC delegation to
Colombia. The audience was terrified when they listened to all the
security measures that trade union activists are forced to observe. He
pointed out that the trade union and peasant leaders are currently
slaughtered and tortured by the army and the paramilitaries because
they are in the forefront of the struggle against privatisation. Jeremy
Dear compared the Colombian conditions with the Venezuelan situation
for trade unionists and he highlighted the freedom that trade unions
enjoy in Venezuela. He closed his contribution appealing to the
audience to campaign for the defence of the Venezuelan revolution and
in defence of the Colombian trade union activity against US
imperialism.

After the NUJ General Secretary spoke, Jorge Martin (Hands Off
Venezuela International Secretary) explained the origins of the
Venezuelan UNT in relation to the defeat of the bosses lock-out at the
end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. He also said that in spite of
the fact that the labour movement in Venezuela has not led the
revolution, the workers played a very important role in the defeat of
the lock-out and they even installed workers’ control in some PDVSA
(state oil company) plants and occupied factories as a measure to
protect production against the bosses’ sabotage. On the links between
the Chavez government and the UNT he pointed out that there is a
healthy and friendly relation between trade union and government.
However, the UNT is completely autonomous from the government. In fact
the UNT has openly expressed disagreement with some measures taken by
the government.

Dave Raby, recently arrived from Caracas after finishing a seminar
at the Venezuelan Bolivarian University, also contributed to the
discussion. Dave Raby analysed the origins of the Venezuelan
Revolution. He explained how the conscious action of the Venezuelan
masses has changed the whole country. Mr Raby stated: “What is
happening in Venezuela is the beginning of a revolutionary
breakthrough”. He gave a full account of the “Misiones” (social
programmes on healthcare, housing, etc.) and how the actual
implementation is due to the autonomous organisations in the
communities. He also talked about how the economic treaties sponsored
by the Venezuelan government seek to oppose the US backed treaties like
the FTAA.

Gonzalo Gomez from Aporrea.org
(the main left-wing political website in Venezuela) began his
contribution by talking about the “reciprocal solidarity” between
Venezuela and the peoples of Europe and other advanced countries. He
expressed the Venezuelan people’s rejection of the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He linked the attacks launched by the US on Iraq with the
active intervention of the US administration in Venezuela to plot
against the revolution. In his contribution he also stressed the need
to push for the alternative media. He stated, “We cannot rely on the
bosses media”. He said that the media should be linked to the community
and the labour movement. Gonzalo Gomez also hailed the process whereby
the CTV (the tool of the oligarchy within the trade union movement) is
being replaced by the UNT, the new and anti-capitalist trade union. One
of the main concerns of the Aporrea.org editor was the
bureaucratisation of the movement and the state apparatus in Venezuela.
In order to stop this bureaucratisation the process which has been
called “revolution within the revolution” was badly needed. He also
said that the Venezuelan government was a popular government but not a
government of the workers and the people yet because the bosses were
still sacking workers. However, he denied that the Chavez government
was a bosses’ government and he enthusiastically supported all the
progressive measures implemented by the government and the favourable
conditions for the class struggle in Venezuela.

Andy Higginbottom introduced the Killer-Cola campaign. This campaign
is the actual implementation of an international appeal launched by
SINALTRAINAL (food and beverages processing workers’ union in
Venezuela) to raise awareness of the awful situation of the Colombian
activists and to expose the Coca-Cola corporation for its involvement
in the assassination of a long list of their workers and shop stewards
actively involved in the union. He also linked the struggle against
imperialism in Colombia with the Bolivarian Revolution. A victory for
the Venezuelan Revolution will be a step forward in the struggle
against imperialism and its puppets in Colombia. After his speech a
very interesting question and answer session took place.

ESF meeting on Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution

“We have to learn the lessons of past solidarity campaigns”

Yesterday, October 17, In Defence of Marxism and the Hands
Off Venezuela campaign organised a meeting on Venezuela and the
Bolivarian revolution at the European Social Forum in London. Despite
the fact that this important workshop had been relegated to an early
Sunday morning, nearly 70 people turned up to hear Alan Woods, editor
of Marxist.com, and Jorge Martin, on behalf of the Hands off Venezuela
Campaign, speak on the events in Venezuela. The room was packed with
young people and trade unionists from all over the world.

Before dealing with the actual subject, Jorge Martin started his
speech with a reference to the organisation of this year’s European
Social Forum. Not enough attention had been paid to the subject of
Venezuela, which is now one of the most important developments in the
whole world. It is a real pity that no seminar could be organised as
this meant that no simultaneous translation was available.

Having said that, Jorge turned to the reason behind the setting up
of the Hands off Venezuela Campaign. The campaign had been started
mainly to counter the vicious media blockade on the subject of
Venezuela. On really significant events like the Bolivarian Revolution
there is a wall of silence on the part of the Western media. Even
worse, when they do refer to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, he is
nearly always portrayed as an authoritarian former army general, not as
a democratically elected president who has won in seven different
electoral processes. Jorge Martin recalled a striking anecdote on the
media lies. He was on his way to Caracas in an Air France airplane.
Reading the Spanish daily El Pais, he read about Caracas
being paralysed by a massive strike involving all important sectors of
the economy, including the cancellation of all international flights.
However, Jorge was flying precisely to Caracas and everything was
perfectly normal there!

Then he posed the question of the Bolivarian Revolution. Since there
has been no fundamental economic transformation, why do we say that the
events in Venezuela are of a revolutionary character? The main reason
is the massive political awareness in the country. Contrary to most
Western “democracies”, there is no apathy at all among the Venezuelan
people. Everybody has an opinion on the political situation, either
from the right or from the left. But above all, in the last years there
has been massive participation of ordinary people and the poorer
sections in society in politics. The recent recall referendum is proof
of this. In other countries the participation level is always quite
low, with only 40 or 50 percent of the people bothering to vote. Why
would they vote if all politicians tell them the same things? In
Venezuela, on the other hand, more than 90 percent of the people turn
up to vote. This is because people can see that it does make a
difference who is in power. After the election of Hugo Chavez huge
literacy campaigns have been conducted. For the first time poor people
have access to basic medical health care, and there has been
significant land reform, etc. In short, after the 1998 election there
has been a mass politicization. For the first time ordinary working
people have a sense of dignity and now feel as real human beings. This
is one of the most striking features when you travel to Venezuela and
talk to people, Jorge said. They can see something has changed for the
better and they want to maintain and extend these achievements.
Precisely because of all the progressive reforms, Chavez has been able
to maintain his support among a majority of the Venezuelan people. Not
only one time, but in seven electoral contests! Compare that to the
West, where one government after another is voted out of office.

That is, of course, not to the liking of the so-called “Democratic
Opposition”. They could not even stand his initially moderate reforms,
and obviously could stand even less the subsequent more radical
reforms. Hence their various attempts at overthrowing Chavez’s
government by terrorist means, lock-outs and a coup. One criticism you
can make of Chavez, Jorge told the audience, is not that he is
authoritarian, but rather too lenient with the coup organisers. Those
who pulled down a statue of Colombus on Columbus Day (October 12) were
put in jail, but most of the organisers of the coup are still free and
have been able to flee the country. Some are on trial now, two years
after the coup, but Pedro Carmona has only been put under house arrest.
As a result, he fled to Miami and is now organising the opposition.
Carlos Andres Pérez, now living in the Dominican Republic, said that
the only way to remove Chavez is by violent means. These kinds of
scoundrels are still free and have been able to organise the terrorist
campaign of last year.

Jorge Martin then spoke on the trade union situation in Venezuela.
The old CTV union has more than ever been discredited since its open
support for the coup. Most of the workers have joined the new UNT, and
what is more, they have done this on a radical program. The UNT is now
the real trade union in Venezuela and its program includes workers’
control over the economy. This led Jorge to elaborate on this point.
During last year’s lock-out there have been experiences of workers’
control. This was not in a small textile company, but in the oil
industry, one of the biggest industries in the world! The oil company
in Venezuela is indeed highly technological (with most processes being
run by computer and satellite systems). The workers refused to take
part in the lock-out of the bosses and were able to run the whole
industry without the bosses. This proves that if workers can run such a
complex industry then they can run anything. On that point, Jorge also
mentioned the case of the Venepal workers and the need for solidarity.

There is also the issue of the struggle between Venezuela and the
United States. The US was interfering directly in Venezuela during the
2002 coup. They cannot tolerate a government that is an example to
workers all over the world, especially the masses in their backyard,
Mexico and Latin America. But Venezuela has some good trump cards, one
of which is oil. Chavez has already threatened to cut off the oil
supplies to the US if they interfere in their internal affairs. That
would be an enormous blow, since Venezuela is the third biggest oil
supplier to the US.

“So what is the next step then?” Jorge asked. The oligarchy is
demoralised and demobilised after they lost the referendum. The balance
of forces is extremely favourable to the revolution. In the Bolivarian
movements there have been numerous debates about the need for a
revolution in the revolution, about the fight against bureaucracy.
However, the state is still the same old state, with the same
bureaucracy at the head of it. Jorge said you cannot take over a
capitalist state and make it serve the interests of the people.
Besides, some sections of the economy are still in private hands, most
importantly the bank sector. Today two Spanish banks control the
banking sector in Venezuela. The distribution of food and beverages is
done privately, which enabled the opposition to paralyse the country
during the lock-out by disrupting the supplies.

Jorge continued by saying that some important battles have been won,
but that this is a war over control of the economy. There are opposing
class interests involved, and these have not been solved yet. Jorge
used the analogy used by 19th century peasant war leader Ezequiel
Zamora. In the course of the Federal War against the landed oligarchy,
Zamora correctly said that “we must confiscate the property of the
rich, since with it they make war against the people, we must leave
them just with their shirts”.

By way of conclusion, Jorge said we are living in very exciting
times. To his knowledge there is no precedent of a successful military
coup being defeated by the mass movement of working people once it has
already been installed. This gives hope for the future – something can
be done. Also, it is foolish to moderate your viewpoints for fear of
provoking the enemy. The opposition and US imperialism have already
been provoked, as the coup proves. The excuse often used by workers’
leaders that you can’t have a radical program that “scares away” the
voters has been proved utterly wrong. In Venezuela there have been
seven elections, and each of then have been won by the left-wing
government.

Alan Woods speaks

After Jorge Martin’s speech, the floor was given to Alan Woods. He
started with the same observation that we live in very exciting times.
Fifteen years ago the capitalists were euphoric because, so they
claimed, “Socialism has been proven not to work”. They were talking
about the end of socialism and communism, and some even dared to talk
about the end of history. No change was possible in the best of
possible worlds. But they merely proved to be utopians. Now there is
instability in the whole of Latin America, Africa is in a horrible
state, etc.

But Venezuela shows that change is possible. Contrary to all the
lies of the media, Hugo Chavez is not a dictator but an extremely
popular president. The recall referendum once again proved that the
majority of the Venezuelan people are standing behind their president.
A recall referendum is in fact a very democratic mechanism, and Alan
could think of several other leaders who would greatly benefit from the
application of this mechanism! That is, George Bush, but also Tony
Blair. The latter defied public opinion by lying over the motives for
going to war in Iraq. The British people clearly said they didn’t want
this war, and yet there is no way of removing Tony Blair from power.

Alan Woods then went on to explain why the Bolivarian Revolution is
indeed a revolution, contrary to what some left groups claim.
Paraphrasing Leon Trotsky, he said: “The essence of a revolution is the
direct intervention of the masses in the political life of the nation.”
Millions of ordinary Venezuelan people began to move and started to
take matters into their own hands. The indignation of the masses, who
had suffered under 40 years of oppression and misery, was expressed in
a peculiar way after the left-wing 1992 coup in the figure of Hugo
Chavez. In 1998 he won the elections with an absolute majority. Eight
years later, Chavez received 60 percent of the votes. How many
governments in the world can claim this?

After vividly describing the anger and mood of the masses, he firmly
warned that the revolution has not been completed. The basic position
of Marxists towards the Venezuelan revolution is to support it
completely against foreign intervention. That is what Hands Off
Venezuela is trying to do. But there is more to it. It is not possible
to make half a revolution. What the referendum campaign has shown is
that Venezuelan society is extremely polarised between right and left.
The counterrevolutionaries are regrouping their forces and are
preparing for a new offensive once the conditions are more favourable
(most likely the 2006 elections). As long as the oligarchy continues to
maintain its hold on important sections of the economy, it will
continue to act as an agent of US imperialism, sabotaging and
undermining the Bolivarian revolution. That is why the property of the
counterrevolutionaries should be expropriated and the power of the
landowners should be broken. Alan made an analogy with the American
revolution, which took drastic measures against the landowners. Just as
the American revolutionaries, the Venezuelan revolution should deal
blows to the big landowners.

The speech ended with an appeal. Not everything is fine and the
revolution has not finished. Battles have been won, but not the war.
The important point to stress is that everybody is able to do
something. Alan appealed to the public saying that they can make a
difference. Trade unionists can discuss the situation in their branches
and pass resolutions recognising the new UNT trade union, other people
can counter the numerous media lies. Above all, it is important to
coordinate the different initiatives and set up Hands off Venezuela
committees.

Ramon Samblas then opened the meeting for questions and
contributions from the audience. Somebody from the audience made the
point that the solidarity campaign for Chile started after the 1973
coup and that it is better to start organising while the revolution is
going on. “We have to learn the lessons of past solidarity campaigns.
All of them have failed because they started too late.” He also said it
was a real shame that Venezuela had not been discussed at a big session
at the European Social Forum. Other contributions came among others
from a young Norwegian trade unionist and Henry Suarez, professor of
History at Caracas Central University.

The general conclusion of the meeting was that we must defend the
Bolivarian Revolution unconditionally. However, it is also necessary to
deepen the political analysis of the Venezuelan revolution and the way
forward. Only by learning the lessons of past defeats can we guarantee
victory this time.

Venezuela between revolution and counterrevolution

By Alan Woods

The reports from Venezuela indicate a sharpening of the struggle between the
contending forces.

On Friday a gunman killed three people and wounded 21 others at an
anti-government rally in a plaza where rebel officers have held daily protests.
This bloody incident bears all the hallmarks of a premeditated provocation.
According to reports in Clarin, snipers mounted on motorbikes fired at a
group which included dissident army officers. Police have arrested seven
suspects, one of whom is Joao de Gouveira, a Portuguese national and a taxi
driver by profession, who is said to have confessed to the shooting in Altamira
Square.

We have no information about this Gouveira. It is impossible to say whether
he is a professional provocateur or a deranged ultra-left or a terrorist
manipulated by the CIA or some other state agency. This, however, is a secondary
matter. The objective content of this action is that it is a provocation that is
designed to discredit the revolution and provide support for the anti-government
forces. In particular, it is intended to create an atmosphere of fear and panic
that is conducive to the formation of a "Party of Order" among the
army officers.

The revolutionary camp must be on its guard against provocateurs who have
undoubtedly infiltrated themselves into the mass movement, with a view to
causing disorder and panic. Their aim is to drag the mass movement into futile
armed conflicts that can end with a large number of casualties. This is the main
aim of the counterrevolutionaries. That is why the ideas of "foquism"
and individual terrorism are so harmful to the movement. The groups that
advocate such tactics are very easily infiltrated by the police and secret
services and manipulated for sinister purposes. It is necessary to firmly oppose
all adventurist tactics that put the whole movement at risk.

The way to defeat the counterrevolution is not through individual shoot-outs
but through the actions of the masses themselves. And the masses are responding
to the challenge magnificently! On Saturday about 100,000 Chavez followers
poured onto the streets of Caracas in a human flood. This is the way to answer
the enemy! By contrast, the number of counterrevolutionaries on the streets was
much less. This is an indication that the willpower of the middle class is
waning. That is quite typical of the petty bourgeois, which looks for quick
successes and is easily discouraged when it meets resistance.

However, the struggle is by no means over yet. Troops ordered to seize the
Pilin Leon, anchored off the coast, failed yesterday to retake the oil tanker
which was seized by counterrevolutionaries because the crew said they would
break maritime law to surrender control to unqualified officers. The aim of the
reactionaries is perfectly clear: to cause the maximum chaos and disorder, to
wreck the economy, to take the bread from the mouths of the people and thus
create the conditions for a coup.

Having initially failed to bring things to a head by demonstrations, the
attention of the reaction has shifted from the street to the state oil monopoly,
PDVSA. Since the beginning of the present campaign of sabotage oil production
has fallen 40% and key refineries are on the verge of closing. Since oil exports
account for half of the government's revenue, this is a calamity for the
country.

Hugo Chavez has ordered the army to increase its protection of oil sites and
has warned that he may declare a state of emergency if the disruption continues
to grow. He has also threatened to remove staff at refineries.

But the counterrevolutionaries are implacable. They understand that if this
movement - the fourth this year - fails, they will find themselves in great
difficulties. Behind the scenes the US embassy is urging them on. There is no
shortage of dollars to finance these murky operations. Both sides understand
that the outcome of the present test of strength will be decisive.

The counterrevolutionary forces do not feel strong enough to take power by
themselves. The intention of the street demonstrations is not to stage a
national uprising, but only to create panic and disorder in the hope that the
reactionary elements in the tops of the army will be encouraged to carry out a pronunciamiento.

To the degree that the present situation is permitted to last, the
possibilities of such a development will increase. The idea will gather force
that "this cannot continue", "order must be restored". The
risk of Bonapartist tendencies in the armed forces is very real.

Hugo Chavez has accused his enemies of sabotage and urged his people to
"keep mobilised on the streets and in the countryside to defend the
revolution once again". This is in fact the only way to save the revolution
from imminent disaster. However, the mobilisation of the masses, by itself, is
not enough. The movement requires not only courage and fighting spirit - it
needs a clear goal, a programme and a strategy.

To do justice to the counterrevolutionaries, they have such a goal, and have
consistently pursued it with skilful tactics, worked out by intelligent people
who have no concern for constitutions, laws or any other scruples when it comes
to defending their class interest. We should learn from our enemies, and show
exactly the same qualities in fighting for the interests of our class.

The masses are responding with their customary energy and determination.
There have been reports of factory occupations, including in the oil industry.
This is the way forward!

From all over the country messages and resolutions are pouring in from rank
and file organisations of the Bolivarian Movement demanding that the President
take decisive action. In particular the people are enraged at the vile conduct
of the press, the radio and the television. These powerful instruments in the
hands of the capitalists are always used against the labour movement. At this
moment they are being used by the counterrevolutionary forces in Venezuela to
agitate against the legally elected government and in favour of a coup. The
question is posed of occupation of the TV, radio and press offices in order to
put an end to the manipulation of the news by the reactionaries.

In 1968 in France, the print workers obliged the millionaire press to submit
to scrutiny by a workers' committee to ensure that the content of the newspapers
was reasonably balanced. The papers had to publish the workers' point of view on
the main questions of the day. This is probably the only time that the people of
France could read the truth about the workers' struggle. The working people of
Venezuela could do more than just follow this example.

Under the capitalist system the freedom of the press is an empty phrase. In
all countries the media is owned and controlled by a handful of super rich
tycoons who appoint and sack the editors according to their tastes. It is they
who ultimately decide the political line of the media. A tiny group of powerful
men, elected by nobody and responsible to nobody, is able to shape and mould
public opinion, to make and break governments. And this is what they call
"democracy"!

A workers' state would nationalise the mass media and provide free access to
them to all political and social tendencies in proportion to their support in
the population. In this way, the revolutionary committees would have television
stations and daily papers, and could permit themselves the luxury of giving the
wealthy press tycoons the democratic right to produce a small duplicated monthly
which they could sell at the bus stops and market places.

When Chavez was elected four years ago, he promised a fundamental change in
Venezuelan society. The people believed him. There is no doubt whatsoever of his
personal honesty and his sincere desire to act in the interests of the mass of
poor people, the workers and peasants. Important gains have been made, and these
must be defended. But in the end, the real problem remained unsolved. The
country's economy remained in the hands of a tiny oligarchy that has robbed and
ruined the country. These wealthy and powerful men will never be reconciled to a
free, just and equal Venezuela. As long as the land, the banks and the
industries remain in their hands, no real lasting solution is possible.

What is required in Venezuela is a social revolution. The question is: who
shall prevail? A handful of wealthy magnates backed by US imperialism, or the
overwhelming majority of the people whose only crime is to seek a better life
for themselves and their children? Those who talk grandiloquently about
democracy conveniently overlook the fact that what they are advocating is that a
tiny handful of wealthy parasites should control the lives and destinies of the
vast majority of the people. That is not democracy. It is the dictatorship of
Capital.

The economic sabotage has had a certain effect, provoking shortages in the
shops and a wave of panic buying across Venezuela. As the conflict entered its
second week, the National Guard has had to commandeer delivery trucks and force
petrol stations to open. The shutdown has crippled the oil industry of the
world's fifth-largest producer as wells, refineries, tanker ships, delivery
centres and gas stations have stopped operating. The situation thus remains
serious.

Outside Caracas, the National Guard seized at least three gasoline
distribution centres that had closed in the strike. The government hired
civilians to drive tanker trucks - commandeered from their private owners - to
gas stations. The Energy Ministry said the private property would be returned to
its owners "as soon as activities are normalised."

But here is the problem. There is no question of things ever being
"normalised" in Venezuela until the fundamental contradiction is
removed. What is necessary is to destroy the economic power of the capitalist
class by expropriating the commanding heights of the economy. This would make it
impossible for the enemies of the revolution to conduct the kind of sabotage we
are now witnessing.

More importantly, it would enable the people of Venezuela to mobilise the
full productive potential of Venezuelan industry, agriculture and manpower to
solve the burning problems of the masses.

For the present, the situation of unstable equilibrium continues. Egged on by
Washington the reactionaries are even hardening their demands. Talks between the
opposition and government were resumed Saturday night but appeared to make
little progress. The opposition initially was seeking a referendum on Chavez's
4-year-old government, but now it is demanding his immediate resignation.

The most serious aspect of the situation is the beginnings of what are
clearly armed provocations, like the one that was staged last Friday. There is
no doubt that this was intended to lead to even more serious clashes.
Fortunately, so far this has not occurred. However, the need for some kind of
defence force or militia is clearly posed.

The need for defence should be discussed in every committee and where
possible arrangements should be made to set up defence groups to patrol the
local areas and maintain order. The workers' districts must be protected against
criminal elements and provocateurs that seek to disturb the peace and provoke
conflicts. Specialised people with a knowledge of military affairs can be put in
charge of these units. The purpose is not to cause violence, as some have
suggested, but to minimise it and to deter aggressors.

The question of the army remains the central issue. The majority of the
soldiers are on the side of the people. The closest contacts must be maintained
between the barracks and the committees, and together they should keep a close
watch on the movements and conduct of army officers whose loyalty is doubtful.

It is absolutely correct to place demands on the President and to press the
leadership to act in a decisive manner. In the last analysis, Chavez himself is
a personification of the aspirations of the masses, or, to be more correct, of
the first confused aspirations of the masses that have been recently awoken to
political life. In appealing to these aspirations and the striving for a better
life for the poor and oppressed, Hugo Chavez undoubtedly played a progressive
role.

But life moves on. The situation now is posed in darker colours. Venezuelan
society is fractured and polarised to the left and right. The old vague slogans
no longer have any value or use in this situation. What is needed is clarity and
firmness. An ever increasing number of people are beginning to see this and are
loudly demanding a firmer hand and more decisive action in dealing with the
enemies of the people. It is entirely correct and necessary to put pressure on
the leadership to act. If they do so, the struggle can be won far more quickly
and with fewer sacrifices.

But what is absolutely necessary is for the masses to continue to act from
below, immediately to carry their demands into practice, without waiting for any
lead from the top. This was how they won in April and this is how they can win
now.

Unfortunately, Hugo Chavez has often displayed indecision in the face of
events. Lacking a clear perspective, he finds himself under extreme pressures
from left and right. He is being urged by so-called friends to behave with
moderation, for fear of making things worse. With "friends" like these
one really needs no enemies! It is necessary to counteract these pressures by
stepping up the pressure from below.

Undoubtedly, a great weight of responsibility rests on the shoulders of the
President. As an old army man, all his instincts are against splitting the army.
He does not want a civil war. But the fact is that the only way to prevent a
civil war is by taking decisive action against the counterrevolution and arming
the people. The Romans of old had a saying: "Si pacem vis, para
bellum" - If you desire peace, prepare for war! It is the eternal dialectic
of reformism and pacifism that they achieve precisely the opposite results to
the ones intended. By arming and mobilising the masses against the danger of
reaction, that danger becomes less, not more. By compromising and trying to
avoid a fight, that is, by showing weakness in the face of reaction, the latter
becomes more confident and more aggressive.

As for the army, it is already divided between the majority that is on the
side of the people, and a minority of elements who have been bought by the
counterrevolution. The only question is which of the two factions will emerge
triumphant. Hugo Chavez should base himself on the masses and the soldiers who
are with the masses in order to disarm and arrest the counterrevolutionary
elements in the barracks. Do not trust those who pose as loyalists but who
advocate a policy of conciliation with the enemy and complain about the masses
"going too far"! Remember the fate of Salvador Allende, who trusted
the "democratic" general Pinochet and refused to distribute arms to
the masses who were willing to fight for the government.

Here and in other articles, we have advocated a definite line of action to
save the Venezuelan revolution and carry it forward. One may be in favour of
these proposals or against them. But what happens at the end of the day will be
decided by the masses themselves in the course of struggle. Their own experience
will teach them which ideas are correct. The presence of a revolutionary Marxist
party with a far-sighted leadership would enable them to find the right way in a
shorter space of time. The marvellous resolutions from the local committees show
that they are in the process of finding this way, and that in the committees
there already exist elements that are fighting for a Marxist policy. Once the
masses are convinced that this is the way in which to move, no force on earth
can stop them.

The revolution in Venezuela is in danger!

By Fred Weston

This article is based on material published in Venezuela, which is available in
Spanish (see links at the end of this article). We will provide more material in
the coming days. We ask all our readers and supporters to step up the campaign
we launched last week in defence of the Venezuelan revolution. Keep collecting
the solidarity signatures, organise meetings, raise money, spread the word about
what is happening in Venezuela.

Events in Venezuela are moving fast. Twice the "opposition" – which
gathers around it all that is reactionary in Venezuela – has tried to
overthrow Chavez. First they tried the coup in April 2002, then the so-called
oil workers' strike. On both occasions mass opposition from the workers and
poor of Venezuela stopped the reactionaries in their tracks. But in the last few
days they have adopted a new tactic, to sow terror on the streets. Workers,
students, Chavez supporters, left activists have come under physical attack.
This is part of a grand plan to destabilise the country and create conditions
more favourable for the opposition, including the possibility of another coup.

Speaking at a mass rally in Caracas on Sunday Chavez made the harshest speech
he has ever made yet against Bush. He said that if US imperialism dares to
interfere in Venezuelan politics and tries to remove the democratically elected
government of the country, not one drop of Venezuelan petroleum would go to the
United States. This is a serious threat because Venezuela exports about 1.5
million barrels of oil daily to the U.S. He also raised the possibility that the
U.S. may be tempted to carry out a military intervention. In such a case there
would be enough mountain, enough jungle, enough savannah, enough dignity and
also enough guts to confront such an attack.

Chavez speaks at Sunday's demonstration

The campaign to destabilise the country is being orchestrated nationally
within Venezuela and internationally. In different towns and districts around
Venezuela small but very determined and fanatical groups have been carrying out
attacks on supporters of the revolutionary process. Faced with the
counter-attacks of the workers and youth, these gangs have fired on ordinary
civilians.

These activities have already provoked mass reaction. On Sunday, February 29th,
Caracas saw millions of ordinary working Venezuelans, the downtrodden, the poor,
the workers and youth, march through the streets for six hours. The masses could
sense the danger that was looming. Two days earlier the opposition had mobilised
a much smaller force on the streets of Caracas. Sunday's mass rally
represented the whole people mobilising in defence of their basic democratic
rights and in defence of the revolutionary process unfolding in Venezuela.

At the Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV) a small gang of "oppositionists"
tried to raise barricades but they were swept away by the spontaneous
mobilisation of students and workers. Similar provocations have taken place
elsewhere. In the area of El Valle a group of about 100 provocateurs backed by
an armed group attempted to take control of the streets, but were later
dispersed by the mobilisation of the local people. The students at the UCV were
holding a mass meeting today to discuss how to proceed.

These events are all part of a grand plan to present Venezuela as a country
falling into chaos, with the clear aim of justifying moves against Chavez and
the Bolivarian movement that stands behind. They want to confuse the workers and
youth of the world about what is really going on in Venezuela and thus justify
their attempts to overthrow the democratically electe3d government and President
of Venezuela.

But why is all this happening now? After the failure of the April 2002 coup
and the "oil workers' strike" the reactionary opposition was in
difficulty. It had lost its momentum. Its supporters were demoralised. They were
no longer capable of mobilising the already weak forces they had. Recent opinion
polls actually show that they are weaker electorally. The same polls show that
Chavez has more than 60% support among the population. There is even greater
support for some of his basic reforms, such as in education and healthcare.
These have 75-80% support. Ordinary workers and poor know where their interests
lie!

Faced with this, the opposition shifted all their efforts to getting a recall
referendum, which the Venezuelan constitution allows for. For this they need to
get a minimum of 2,400,000 signatures. They have failed abysmally to achieve
this figure. They claim they have the signatures, but it has been clearly
demonstrated that many of these are false. There have been many cases of people
declaring that their signatures had been falsified. In some cases it has been
proven that the signatures were of dead people! Even children were signing for
the opposition! And many signatures were duplicates. The opposition could sense
that the National Electoral Council (NEC) was not going to come down on their
side.

Without the referendum the "opposition" faced a further weakening and
demoralisation of its forces. However, even if the NEC were to declare that this
time round a sufficient number of signatures has been collected it seems very
unlikely that in the given conditions, the opposition could win such a
referendum.

The opposition leaders are fully aware that they would most likely lose, but
they need something to keep their forces mobilised. Part of their plans are
clearly to try to go ahead with the referendum, and if the result turns out be a
defeat for them they would then declare it a fraud and mobilise on that basis.
This seems to be how they were planning to do things, but now that the
referendum may not even take place they have been forced to anticipate events.
Time was playing against them. Opinion polls show that they could even lose
control of some local councils. This, again, would put them in a very
unfavourable situation. They could not claim to represent the "people" of
Venezuela as they have been trying to do, once the masses had passed their
verdict.

The opposition has thus found itself in extreme difficulty. It is their very
weakness which has placed them with their backs to the wall. They must move,
they must do something if they are to get their supporters mobilised behind
them. But it is their very weakness which is leading them to act in the
desperate way they are doing at the moment.

They may even be contemplating an attempted assassination of Chavez himself.
If this were to happen, Venezuela would be thrown into even greater turmoil. A
civil war could be on the agenda. The masses would not remain passive. They
would come out in their millions. We would be facing a new "Caracazo", but
this time on a much higher level. The masses are much more organised. They have
a greater experience. They have gained much and will not be willing to give all
this up to the reactionary, pro-imperialist gangsters that want to turn the
clock back.

The opposition is clearly thinking of what their next step should be. Some
must be playing with the idea of another coup. They are looking for support
among the higher levels of the military. For now, the balance of forces, even at
this level of the armed forces, is still weighed against them. Most of the
officers have stated their loyalty to Chavez. In fact, last time there was a
coup, under the pressure of the masses, a wing of the army moved to save Chavez
and overthrow the coup leaders. However. There is no guarantee that this "loyalty"
will remain for ever. It depends on several factors.

If they see the country falling into "chaos" some of them may decide to
switch their allegiances. We have seen this many times before. At the crucial
moment, the top officers side with their own class, the bosses. But it seems we
have not yet reached that stage. But this stage clearly remains within the plans
of the opposition. What they are doing is trying to create a more favourable
situation for such a scenario.

One short term option is a possible embargo to be imposed on Venezuela from
outside, led by the United States and backed by their allies in the rest of
Latin America. This however, also has its risks. Instead of weakening Chavez it
could push the movement onto a higher level, with the masses lurching evermore
leftwards, thus increasing the pressures on Chavez to take even firmer measures
against imperialism.

Another rumour circulating in Venezuela is that the governor of Zulia, an
oil-rich region on the border with Colombia, may be tempted to declare
independence. This would be a provocation aimed at getting Chavez to intervene
militarily and thus justify some external intervention to "save" Zulia. The
fact that it is on the Colombian border would facilitate this.

All these are clearly possibilities that the opposition is considering. The
problem is that at this stage the balance of forces is still massively weighted
against them. If they don't move then they clearly demonstrate their weakness
and thus boost the confidence of the masses. If they do move they are escalating
events and pushing the masses to counter-attack.

Mass demonstration

So it seems that their actions over the last few days are dictated by their
desperate need to keep up the morale of their supporters. They are doing this by
mobilising the dregs of society in these cowardly attacks of armed gangs against
unarmed workers and youth. This is part of a more ling-term strategy aimed at
destabilising the country and preparing more favourable conditions for reaction.

Their slogan is "the worse the better". More chaos and disorder they
succeed in sowing, the more likely they feel they can start to change the
balance of forces within the institutions of the state, in particular within the
army tops. If they can convince some key elements at this level that the country
faces "collapse" or some kind of "communist take-over" then they would
be preparing the conditions for a new coup at some point in the future.

However, it is not ruled out, that faced with a desperate situation, they
could be pushed into a premature action and try and base themselves on those
officers who are already with them. We cannot be complacent about the situation.
The Venezuelan revolution is staring reaction in the face. Any sign of weakness
on the part of Chavez, or of the Venezuelan masses, would invite further
aggression.

Mass demonstration

This threat will not go away. At best, it will be delayed for a further
period. But the opposition will not stop until it has achieved its aim – to
crush the Venezuelan masses, to give them a lesson they will not forget for a
long time. We must make sure that it is the opposition that receives a lesson it
won't easily forget. That will not be achieved by maintaining the status quo.

Last Sunday' massive mobilisation in Caracas shows clearly the immense
power of the Venezuelan masses. They could crush the opposition a thousand times
over. But this will not be done with pious appeals from the government. It is
time to move into action. It is not enough to defend the revolutionary process. It
must be deepened. The power of the opposition is based on its property. It owns
the bulk of the media, the TV, the newspapers, the radio stations, it controls
large parts of the economy. It still has substantial power. It has reserves of
support within the state apparatus. Even the National Electoral Council is
divided 3 to 2 in favour of Chavez. For now the NEC has taken the correct
decision to challenge the signatures. However, there is no guarantee that they
will stick to this. Under pressure, it would take just one of its members to
shift their opinion, for it to fall into the hands of the opposition.

To defend itself the revolution must move forward. The property of these
oligarchs should be expropriated. It should be nationalised under workers'
control. However, this also is not enough. The opposition is armed and backed by
the rich capitalists, behind whom stands imperialism. These forces are not going
to stand idly by while the masses remove all their instruments of power from
their hands. That is why it is an urgent task to organise the masses.

The first steps should be:

- call mass meetings in every working class neighbourhood and workplace;
these should elect defence committees, elected by all and with the right of
recall;

- workers' defence squads should be created to defend each area and
each workplace;

- the Chavez government should distribute arms to these squads and
provide the workers with the necessary training to use them; that is the
only way the workers can seriously defend themselves against the criminal
gangs that the opposition is unleashing;

- special defensive measures should be taken to protect those activists
of the movement, shop stewards etc., against physical attacks; not to do all
this with the excuse that this would merely provoke a reaction on the part
of the opposition would be a serious dereliction of duty; the opposition is
already mobilising, it needs no excuse;

- these committees and defence squads should be linked to the loyal
sections of the army and measures should be taken to make sure the sons of
the workers in the army stay with their class;

If such measures are taken quickly and the masses are mobilised then no force
on the planet could stop the Venezuelan workers. The fascist scum would flee in
the face of such a mighty movement. Not to take the above measures would be
playing into the hands of the opposition. It would facilitate their manoeuvres.
They may be weak now but they are preparing for the future.

The workers of the world must be vigilant. A defeat for the Venezuelan
workers would represent a defeat for all workers, especially for the workers of
Latin America. We repeat: the only way of stopping reaction in Venezuela today
is to take the revolution forward, complete it!

Labour MP publicises Hands off Venezuela appeal

By John McDonnell MP

This article was first published in the British daily, the Morning Star (March
26, 2004) in its Features section: True Labour - The voice of the majority,
under the title Hands off Venezuela. We are publishing it to make it available
to a wider international readership. It is important to highlight that the
article is written by John McDonnell, chairman of the Socialist Campaign Group
of Labour MPs. (March 30, 2004)

While the world's attention has been focused on the occupation of Iraq and
the Israeli assault on Palestinians, there has been little reportage of the
renewed and systematic programme by the Bush regime to extend US hegemony over
south American states.

Morning Star 26/3/2004

The central target of the Bush regime is the government of Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world and yet, as a result
of its history of US economic exploitation, up to 80 per cent of its population
lives in poverty.

The operation of US neocolonialism in Venezuela has traditionally maintained
a rich ruling elite who, in return, ensure the cheap flow of oil to northern
America at the expense of the dire poverty of the majority of the population.

President Chavez was elected by a popular majority on a clear programme to
tackle poverty and to empower the people by using the great oil wealth of his
country in the interests of the people as a whole.

His government's programme of reforms has included an additional 1.5 million
children in school getting three free meals a day, over one million adults
obtaining literacy, 1.5 million more people gaining access to drinking water,
the establishment of indigenous people's rights to land and bilingual education,
the distribution of two million hectares of land to small farmers, the
introduction of food subsidies and vouchers for pregnant women and after birth
as well as a massive expansion of health care to working-class families.

The response of the US has been to support a reactionary right-wing
opposition in a series of attempts to destabilise and remove the Chavez
government from office.

First, in April 2002, they tried a straightforward coup in the style of the
coup against Salvador Allende in Chile. This involved the kidnapping of the
president and seizure of power by an US-backed puppet regime.

Within days, the mass popular street protests of the people ensured the
return of Chavez and the toppling of the US-led junta.

Then came a so-called oil strike engineered by Chavez's right-wing opponents
and aided by US agencies. This attempt to destabilise the country failed
miserably in the face of the determination of the Chavez administration,
actively supported by an overwhelming majority of the population.

More recently, the opposition has launched a petition under the Venezuelan
constitution to force a recall referendum on the government.

Alongside this manoeuvre, the opposition has sought to push the country into
chaos by mounting a series of orchestrated physical attacks, demonstrations and
disturbances.

These provocations are aimed at portraying Venezuela as unstable and,
therefore, in need of a right-wing regime or even military intervention by the
US to restore order. Haiti was just one recent example of the implementation of
this US strategy.

The referendum strategy of the opposition is descending into near farce as
many of the 2.4 million signatures that it requires to trigger a recall
referendum are being found to be forgeries.

The question now is what, when this latest tactic has failed, will the
right-wing opposition and the Bush regime contemplate next? The various
scenarios range from US-led covert economic sanctions and embargoes, another
attempt at a coup and even the assassination of Chavez.

President Chavez's response to these threats has been robust. He has made it
clear that, if US imperialism attempts to interfere in Venezuelan politics and
seeks to remove a democratically elected government, not one drop of Venezuelan
oil will flow into the US.

At present, 1.5 million barrels of oil are exported from Venezuela to the US
every day. Chavez has signalled forcefully that any military intervention would
be met with solid resistance.

The plight of Venezuela has been barely reported in the British and European
media. While the British labour and trade union movement has had a long
association with the struggles of the peoples of south America in Nicaragua,
Chile, El Salvador and Colombia, there has been little solidarity action as yet
with the progressive forces within Venezuela.

The organisation Global Women's Strike has worked closely with Venezuelan
women's organisations and co-operated in organised consciousness-raising tours
in the US.

In addition, this week, it organised a meeting at the House of Commons to
launch an Early Day Motion condemning the US government's interference in
Venezuela.

The solidarity group Hands off Venezuela Campaign has been founded and has
launched an appeal against the increasing interference of US imperialism in the
country in the run-up to the decision on whether a recall referendum will be
convened.

The appeal statement says: "The United States government has no moral
standing to give the Venezuelan government and people lessons in democracy"
and goes on to demand that the US halts its interference in Venezuela.

This appeal statement has been signed by numerous progressive politicians and
trade unionists from around the world including Tony Benn and NUJ general
secretary Jeremy Dear.

It is time for all socialists, trade unionists, progressives and democrats to
stand up for the right of the people of Venezuela to elect their own government
and determine their own future.